LexDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus BIBHU PRASAD ACHARYA, ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 510 : 2024 INSC 843 Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, etc. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 4314-4316 of 2024) 06 November 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant filed complaints against the respondents and others u/s.44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued summons to the respondents and other accused persons. However, the High Court held that it was necessary to obtain prior sanction under sub-section (1) of s.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and quashed the orders of taking cognizance passed by the Special Court on the complaints only as against the said respondents. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.3, 4, 44(1) (b), 65 and 71 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Respondents contended before the High Court that it was necessary to obtain prior sanction under sub- section (1) of s.197 of the CrP.C. before taking cognizance of the complaints – The High Court upheld the respondents' contentions and quashed the orders of taking cognizance passed by the Special Court on the complaints only as against the said respondents – Propriety: Held: There are two conditions for applicability of s.197(1) – The first condition is that the accused must be a public servant removable from his office by or with the government's sanction – The second condition is that the offence alleged to have been committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duty – The first condition is satisfied in the case of both the respondents as they are civil servants – In the case of both respondents, the acts alleged against them are related to the discharge of the duties entrusted to them – It is not the allegation in the complaints that the two respondents were not * Author [2024] 11 S.C.R. 511 Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, etc. empowered to do the acts they have done – There is a connection between their duties and the acts complained of – The second condition for the applicability of s.197(1) also stands satisfied, and therefore, in this case, s.197(1) of CrPC applies to the respondents, assuming that s.197(1) of CrPC applies to the proceedings under the PMLA – As far as the applicability of s.197 of CrPC to the PMLA is concerned, there are two relevant provisions in the form of s.65 and 71 of the PMLA – S.65 makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to all proceedings under the PMLA, provided the same are not inconsistent with the provisions contained in the PMLA – The words ‘All other proceedings’ in s.65 include a complaint u/s.44 (1)(b) of the PMLA – There is no provision therein which is inconsistent with the provisions of s.197(1) of CrPC – Therefore, the provisions of s.197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint u/s.44(1)(b) of the PMLA – When a particular provision of CrPC applies to proceedings under the PMLA by virtue of s.65 of the PMLA, s.71 (1) cannot override the provision of CrPC which applies to the PMLA – In the instant case, the cognizance of the offence u/s.3, punishable u/s.4 of the PMLA, was taken against the respondents accused without obtaining previous sanction u/s.197(1) of CrPC – Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct. [Paras 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Object of: Held: The object is to protect the public servants from prosecutions – It ensures that the public servants are not prosecuted for anything they do in the discharge of their duties – This provision is for the protection of honest and sincere officers – However, the protection is not unqualified – They can be prosecuted with a previous sanction from the appropriate government. [Para 6] Case Law Cited Prakash Singh Badal and Another v. State of Punjab and Others [2006] Supp. 10 SCR 197 : (2007) 1 SCC 1; Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [2003] Supp. 3 SCR 746 : (2005) 8 SCC 202 – relied on. S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation Delhi and Others [1981] 3 SCR 864 : (1981) 3 SCC 431; Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar and Another [1998] 3 SCR 22 : (1998) 5 SCC 91; P.K. Pradhan v. State of Sikkim [2001] 3 SCR 1119 : (2001) 6 SCC 704 – referred to. 512 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Code of Criminal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.